AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

betcha never seen a CRT vs LCD comparison like this!

23K views 266 replies 58 participants last post by  plissken99 
#1 ·
I borrowed the Epson PowerLite 715c LCD (1200 ANSI lumens, 1024x768, $5699) from work to see how a high-lumen projector would compare to my Electrohome Marquee 8000 CRT.


Here's the exact same camera (4MP Canon S45), on the exact same screen (12'x8' drywall painted with Sherwin Williams Ultra Bright White Matte), with the exact same frame from "Fifth Element" (I have 2 copies, LCD has the "Superbit Edition"). LCD from my laptop at 1024x768. CRT from my HTPC at 1024x768. Both using WinDVD 4.


Tripod, AWB, and auto-exposure.


Give it time to load. It should cycle between 4 images (I used PSP Animation Shop)...

- me standing in front of the screen with both projectors turned on

- screen with both projectors on (but without me)

- just the LCD (higher image)

- just the CRT (lower image and slightly larger)

http://members.aol.com/marcorsyscom/5e.gif


Some observations:


My Marquee is set at Brightness=40 and Contrast=40.


256 color GIFs aren't the best for showing screenshots, but I couldn't do an animated JPG. I'll post larger JPGs separately.


My CRT is slightly stretched because I like the widescreen view, but I don't like the wasted space on the screen, so I stretch it taller. I didn't realize how much taller I was stretching it until seeing how skinny Bruce's face looks here.


The LCD is 6' further back behind the CRT, but I ran out of cord space, so I couldn't get the image any larger. So if anything, it should be about 10% brighter because the image isn't as large.


The LCD image is higher because from the back of the room, I had to get it to shine over my theater seats. I also had to change my usual tripod position because the bulb left a very distinct shadow on the screen when I had it set in front, so I moved it further back and slightly offset. The tripod is usually set right under my ceiling mounted CRT.


I don't want this to be a LCD bashing thread, but I was impressed with the relative brightness of my CRT (with only 225 ANSI lumens vs the Epson's 1200 ANSI lumens!)


I know this LCD projector is 2001 technology, but it's the best I could borrow, and my CRT is from 1995. The LCD's screen door effect was also worse than I remembered from when I'd borrowed the Epson before I bought my CRT. I took some screenshots of SDE too.


Man, I love my Marquee!


-Clarence
 
See less See more
#128 ·
 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hreadid=357093



Who is Krishna? Why do crt owners dress in robes and chant His name on the streets? What is the philosophy of these Krishna devotees? What's the meaning of their chant?


Krishna is a name of the Supreme Video Display. It means "all- attractive." Anything that might attract you has its source in the Supreme. Therefore the Supreme is also known as Rama (rhymes with "drama"). "Rama" means "the highest eternal video pleasure."


All of us are video pleasure-seeking creatures. So you can say that directly or indirectly we are all seeking Krishna. Chanting Hare Krishna is a way of seeking Krishna directly.
 
#130 ·
Quote:
My favorite quotes:


"crt looks soft"


"These comparisons don't seem to indicate that CRT is a better picture than DLP. That is rather inconsistant with what I read in the CRT forum. Am I overlooking something?"


"I think I still prefer the DLP picture."


"Priceless."




Thanks John & Q. Best laughs I've had all day. :)


Plus it helps me understand how my original lumen comparison can get taken out of context.


You'll like this one too:
screenshot galleries: too many variables?

Quote:
I propose that there may be more variables than screen paint formula involved in your comparison:

- the screen paint is different

- the projectors are different

- the projector contrast settings are different

- the projector brightness settings are different

- the projector color balance settings are different

- the projector imaging technology is different

- the photographer is different

- the pre-processing color overlay adjustment is probably very different

- the digital camera is different

- the exposure times are different

- the white balance is different

- the screen sizes are probably different

- the distance from camera to screen is probably different
 
#132 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by marcorsyscom

My favorite quotes:


"crt looks soft"


"These comparisons don't seem to indicate that CRT is a better picture than DLP. That is rather inconsistant with what I read in the CRT forum. Am I overlooking something?"


"I think I still prefer the DLP picture."


"Priceless."
I'm sure glad I'm neutral in all this and not part of that digital bunch. Because I'll have to say, you've got em all nailed this time, Clarence. :)


But one question. I started to read that last thread you linked us to. But man oh man that whole thing is long and complicated. My head started to hurt before I could figure out what was going on. What is it exactly that this picture was attempting to convey?

http://members.aol.com/marcorsyscom/mm-cmra.jpg
 
#133 ·
 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hreadid=357093


"CRT looks soft". "... the first blows the second one out of the water". Ha! I wonder what they'd say if told they were seriously comparing a $5000 DLP to a $75 CRT.


For the record, I only posted that screenshot to try and get tips because I thought the DLP shot was really well done, *not* as a comparator of quality.

I'm a cheap guy. I spent less than half what that $5000 projector cost for my whole setup, including converting an unfinished attic to "theater" space. I don't have any illusions of picture quality that will make the HT elite's bowels quake. My family and friends and I are happy with the picture, and when I can afford it, maybe I'll upgrade. Sheesh...
 
#134 ·
Clarence, I don't mean for this to be personal. I did think that the LCD picture was unfair to LCD in the general sense, though I think your CRT pic is very nice.


What I am saying is that a film and scanner combination is superior and I'm surprised that no one goes this route for as picky as us CRTers are. As much as some CRTers on here have to throw around, $$$-wise, why not hire a professional photographer to take some screenshots?


The screendoor close-up comparison was really the only comparison that I found useful. And even then, as the digi-crowd claimed, screendoor that bad is an unfair generalization of digital projection. That said, I'd like to see that test replicated with a higher-end digital verses a CRT.


If the LCD were properly setup I doubt it would have looked that different from the CRT. Take them both to grayscale (to more-or-less eliminate the green problems of the LCD pix), and one doesn't look inherently better than the other. That is misleading to an actual in-person experience, IMHO.


Look, I do think your CRT pic is pretty sweet. Don't get me wrong. I know it's not cool to bash someone's test which they spend lots of time working on. I did not mean any offense.


Oh, and for an animated comparison between two images, instead of animated GIF, uncompressed AVI video would be a better way for critical comparison. Just an idea.
 
#135 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Squinty
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hreadid=357093


"CRT looks soft". "... the first blows the second one out of the water". Ha! I wonder what they'd say if told they were seriously comparing a $5000 DLP to a $75 CRT.


For the record, I only posted that screenshot to try and get tips because I thought the DLP shot was really well done, *not* as a comparator of quality.

I'm a cheap guy. I spent less than half what that $5000 projector cost for my whole setup, including converting an unfinished attic to "theater" space. I don't have any illusions of picture quality that will make the HT elite's bowels quake. My family and friends and I are happy with the picture, and when I can afford it, maybe I'll upgrade. Sheesh...
But no one there is suggesting that digital is better than CRT of visa versa. People are simply commenting on what they are seeing in the pictures themselves. Another person is asking a question. I'm not even sure why my friend Bob posted them over there, to be honest. They are misleading/meaningless. Sorry Bob :).


p.s. If you bought a CRT for $75 then you basically got it for free.
 
#136 ·
It's a great thread. I love the Screens forum. (Actually, I love the way characters and personalities are different from forum to forum).

Here's my summary:


There are a series of improvements on paint mixes for DIY screens.


I was initially interested only in the technniques used to get such great screenshots. (Then I started pondering how to make screenshots as valid as possible, by reducing the number of variables.)


The latest DIY screen combo involves painting on top of a reflective surface (mirror, plexi, mylar).


This evidently provides a back-lit effect as shown in the right in the picture above.


Of course, all the pictures seem too good to believe, so half of their effort is spent responding to disbelievers. But after a month of trying to sort the wheat from the chaff, my assessment is that it's a valid technique worth trying.


Exceptional screenshot talent from CMRA is a significant part of the excitement, but his shots continue to improve as the paint and process matures.


My concern was whether this could apply for CRT, but for a $100 worth of supplies and paint at HD, it's worth a shot. (but where am I going to find a 12x8 mirror?!)


I'm keeping an eye on it and I plan to give it a try when we move to the new house this Spring.


-Clarence
 
#137 ·
Quote:
If the LCD were properly setup I doubt it would have looked that different from the CRT
Exactly! But I tried to emphasize that the original intent was to compare "low" lumen vs "high" lumens. The punch line was "see, they're surprisingly comparable!"


I tried to adjust the Epson's colors. I reset default settings. I looked in the setup menu. I downloaded the manual. If I knew the green tint was going to be the key weakness in this whole adventure, I would've gone against my premise of "identical source" and enhanced the color overlay.


But aside from the tint, for a 640 pixel comparison, they did provide very comparable screenshots.


However... and I know I'll regret typing this... in real life, throwing all screenshots and 20MP scans on 35mm film away, on a full-size screen, even from normal sitting distance... there was no comparison. I doubt any type of tweaking on that LCD could make me even ponder giving up my Marquee.


I welcome any opportunity to see better dPJ technology, and I'm open and even hoping for suitable, affordable options. But with the limited resources I had access to, and even more limited means to depict my findings, I'm very glad I got lucky in finding this forum and this projector.


I've said it before and I'll say it again... Man, I love my Marquee.


-Clarence
 
#138 ·
Q,


I need to both admit I goofed and defend myself.


Firstly, Squinty's right. When I used those two

screenshots and put up that thread in the digital

forum, I guess, even though it was not intended,

it was instigating and rabble rousing. For that I

guess I'm guilty. Even though I didn't intend

it that way, I did get caught up in it and made

my share of unfortunate little remarks too.


Let's do a reality check now. Here's the two

screenshots that resulted in the comment

"blows it out of the water".
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...49#post3264449
http://bucklemke.com/images/screen/newCam/P1000016.jpg
http://bloodtip.org/bob/DCP_1619-2.JPG


We all need to get real, here. Neither one blows the

other out of the water. Because I've been around

this stuff long enough that I can tell you from looking

at those two still photos, that I can be pretty sure that

either video picture is very watchable. And enjoyable.

Sure, might need some tweaking and all, but I know

I would be happy with either. And so would most of

you all unless you're anal (which as we all know some are).


I'm the first to concede that it didn't used to be that

way. The bulb projectors didn't used to have enough

gumption. That's a fact. But not no more. The one's

made now are respectable enough that we can finally

dispense with all that blowing out of the water stuff.

Now it's become a vinyl vs cd debate. Some prefer one.

Others prefer the other. But both can now be plenty

happy with either.


Believe it or not, that's the real reason I posted those

two screenshots together. I did not recall ever seeing a

CRT screenshot alongside a DLP screenshot of the same

scene. And I thought it was about time to see that.

We can debate endlessly the value of screenshots.

But I own examples of CRT and DLP projectors. And

there's a lot about what I see in those two screenshots

that I also see on my projection screen. And either one

blowing the other out of the water aint what I see anymore.


Bob
 
#139 ·
I'm late to this thread, but I'm really impressed with the technique done to compare the two projectors. Extremely clever!


HOWEVER, one cannot draw any kind of generalization about LCD from this as the Epson is a more than 3 year old LCD that was never decent for hometheater in the first place! (My work has this one and I've borrowed it for home several times, it really sucks).


It would be great to see the same comparison animation with an LCD projector that's at least from this millenium...
 
#140 ·
Quote:
It would be great to see the same comparison animation with an LCD projector that's at least from this millenium...
2001 isn't that old, but I agree (hope?) the units from the last 12-18 months are better. I just didn't have access to one.


I'll send you my shipping address for any "more worthy" contenders :)


-Clarence
 
#143 ·
The truth is, the point of any kind of comparisons needs to be put into context.


I don't thinks folks here post screen shots because they want to help define their test and measurement skills, nor to brag about how big their CRT's or how small their DLP's are.


I think it comes from a sense of accomplishment. I know that I need to validate all of the time I've spent building screens, flapping lens, modifying Powerstrip, etc, and one of the ways I feel that sense of accomplishment is to post a picture of the end result of my labor and toil. It's like showing a picture of your new car or child to a friend.


And frankly, this forums inspires that. How many threads have you seen that say " Check out my new Barco (with Screen Shots) and have the very first reply to that thread be "Nice Pics! Like what you're doing with your Theater".


Then, the gurus weigh in with suggestions to help improve that persons image, and then the thread ends with the next crisis.


As a group, we're smart folks. We already realize that a digital camera capturing projected images of different display technologies is an imperfect representation of reality - especially our own subjective reality.


Until a standardized method of capturing and displaying images is settled, why not just enjoy the information?


Someone's convergence will always be a little off, their gamma a little too high, the geometry a little funky and their focus a little soft. But just one reply, or one tasty nugget or comment from a forum member about resolution, or screen size, or PJ position can help another forum member solve an issue that they've been struggling with.


That's the point of this medium. So what if CRT Bruce looks like a horse and LCD Bruce looks sea sick? - there is information in this thread and that's the way it should be - bickering, fighting and all.


Keep taking pictures, keep posting screen shots, paint formulas, color correction gel sku's... Every time you do, MY theater gets a little better because of YOUR efforts.


CRT, DLP, LCD HTPC, bibbity bobbity bo.


AJ
 
#144 ·
Well said, AJ.

(and how many posts are made just to get a "Well said" response) :)

Quote:
I don't thinks folks here post screen shots because they want to help define their test and measurement skills
Sadly, that was my primary motivation for this post. The "CRT vs LCD lumens" was just my chosen variable. I wanted to keep as many other variables constrained. See my threads in the Screens forum.


-Clarence
 
#148 ·
That's the AmPro 3600p. The culmination of 40 years of CRT technology by what was once one of the most respected manufacturer's in the industry. The sharpest image of any CRT projector ever produced (that's true by the way). Only 1200 hours on it's pristine tubes (not even a hint of wear).

Remote, manual, the whole enchilada. Only $1495 plus shipping. Paypal accepted.
 
#150 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by marcorsyscom
2001 isn't that old, but I agree (hope?) the units from the last 12-18 months are better. I just didn't have access to one.


I'll send you my shipping address for any "more worthy" contenders :)


-Clarence
I'm definitely NOT criticizing you for comparing what you could get your hands on, but several people in this thread are making generalistic conclusions about digital projectors based on this inferior LCD.


Again, kudos for your clever animation...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top